gone as far as to use tarp to extend paid several executive companies. they had loaned them money to these companies bu. i have been a vocal opponent of tarp by both it ministrations. in december 2000 a, i joined my colleagues and voting against the government bailout of the automobile industry. early their share, a supported a tarp disapproval resolution that would stop the program in its tracks. i have supported several initiatives that would increase tarp transparency in congressional oversight. .

. need for the government to borrow more money. secretary geithner notified congress that he has extended tarp authority through october. congress that he has extended tarp authority through october. now that is money loaned to the financial institutions, that is now being repaid, that treasury anticipates using this for a second stimulus plan. well, i guess that's because they think the first stimulus plan worked so well. you'll recall it was -- the stated objective was to hold unemployment below 8%. it has gone above 10%. we need to learn from our

mistakes as well as things we have done right. it would be a mistake to put more money, particularly tarp money, into a new stimulus plan and have it work so ineffectively as the first stimulus plan did madam president, repaid tarp dollars cannot pay for anything. tarp is let a credit card. every dollar spent is a borrowed dollar, adding up additional deficits, additional debt. using tarp on new spending would break the promise that the president made when he voted for tarp in this very chamber. at that time then senator obama said -- quote -- "if american taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors. they should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers." that was then senator obama, now president of the united states. now, madam president, i would just conclude by saying congress should help the president keep

his promises, even when it seems as he's changed his mind now by suggesting that we extend tarp and use tarp on a purpose that congress has never authorized or never intended. it seems like one -- like the bad ideas never end when it comes to spending and debt out of washington, d.c. these days. we know in addition to all of these other problems that i mentioned that i really haven't talked about, this health care bill which would exacerbate and makes much worse the deficits and debt situation and not make it better, all the time while not benning the cost curve down -- not bending the cost curve down but making it worse, raising premiums, raising taxes, cutting medicare. madam president, we need to end the tarp program because, frankly, it is being misused in ways that congress has never authorized and never intended, and indeed over the very objections of congress.

and we need to learn from our mistakes, and, frankly, the stimulus spending which i voted against because i thought it was based on an academic theory which had not been proven which was that the american people -- that congress knew better than the american people how to get the economy working again by direct spending, by spending borrowed money, the the $1.1 trillion in the stimulus plan. we need to end these free-spending ways and to show some fiscal responsibility. and the best way we could do that, in my opinion, would be to end this tarp program which has been the subject of so much >> the senate has been working again this weekend. what happened during the saturday session? >> the senate came in this morning at 9:00 and had a boat at night of 30 to limit debate

on the omnibus appropriations bill that will extend funding for six different bills that were not enacted during the regular appropriations cycle, and the temporary bill that has been funding the government until now expires on december 18. they have a short window to try to get this finished so that the government can go on funded at elevated levels, not the same levels that has been funded at for the last couple of years. >> why was it held open longer than usual? >> a lot of the problems did not have to do with it being a really controversial vote. it was more the senators just were not there. senator lieberman is an orthodox jew and he often on saturday -- he walked over and almost an hour had gone by the time he

arrived. he was wearing an orange scarf, and it was kind of exciting when he cast a vote and people could leave and catch their flight, because senator mccaskill was waiting on the sidelines to see if she was going to need to change her vote to get the 60 votes required to move forward on this bill. she wanted to vote against that bill and leadership did not want to have to change -- maker have to change her vote. senator byrd, who is getting older and has too often come in a wheelchair came in late as well. >> so what was the outcome of the vote, and what does that mean for the omnibus bill? >> they got the 60 votes required. republicans switched sides and three democrats switched sides. it is almost definitely going to be passed tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. that is when the vote is going

to start. that would mean adoption of the omnibus. hopefully people have their fingers crossed that the president will be able to review this legislation before the 18th and that they will not need to pass to get another temporary funding because they are trying to focus their energy on health care right now. >> they also did spend some time talking about health care. any, -- any progress made on that legislation? >> healthcare is on hold while the congressional budget office and reduce the new version that has been crafted by the group of 10 moderate and liberal democrats who are trying to find language that is going to replace the public option. the gradual -- congressional budget office is determined some sort of a score that tells people how much it is going to cost. there are not a lot of details on that new plant and what it entails. democrats are in a holding pattern and saying that in the

next few deep beginning next few days that will get the cbo report back. republicans have been pushing them to start voting on amendments and democrats really want to focus on the omnibus right now in use this window where they cannot really move forward to their advantage to pass the spending bills. >> what are some of the health- care amendments awaiting action? >> there is a drug importation amendment that has caught a lot of attention. it is a democratic amendment, but a lot of republican support, including john mccain, who has offered an amendment to go along with that amendment. today get democratic leadership said they did not want to vote on the mccain a man that -- amendment. the drug importation amendment will allow americans to import and buy drugs from other countries. a lot of people in the pharmaceutical industry have said this will be a risky thing,

that it could be dangerous for americans to have drugs that might not be regulated the same. proponents of the bill say it will really be a soft -- cost savings to americans. that is the major amendment that is out right now and the amendments related to that. >> what is on the agenda tomorrow? >> tomorrow they hope to adopt that conference for the omnibus and continue to fund the government. >> we will have live coverage of the senate, must spending bill debate when they return tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. eastern time. that is on our companion network, c-span2. you can also read the bill and watch related video on our website, c-span.org.

next, the opening ceremony for the u.n. climate change conference in copenhagen. then house republicans and house democrats talk about climate change and the controversy over lead to e-mail's written by climate researchers. later, a discussion about the role of the solicitor general, hosted by the supreme court historical society. >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," the president of the committee for responsible budget, a new discussion with the author of a " war made easy ." also a talk about the proposal to make medicare available to americans between people five and 64 years old. "washington journal" is live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern

on c-span. >> american icons, three original documentary is from c- span, now available on dvd. a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the explicit detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices. go beyond the velvet ropes of public tours into those rarely seen spaces of the white house, america's most famous home. explore the history, art, and architecture of the capitool, one of america's most symbolic structures. order online at c-span.org. >> delegates from 192 countries gathered in copenhagen this week for the opening of the u.n. climate change conference. the opening ceremony includes speeches from the danish prime minister, the mayor of copenhagen and chairman of the

intergovernmental panel on climate change. president obama is scheduled to attend the final days of the conference with other world leaders next week. this lasts an hour 15 minutes. >> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, honored guests, a warm welcome to copenhagen and to the opening of the united nations climate change conference 2009. [applause] 2009. [applause] today we are honored to have with us his excellency, prime

minister of denmark we are honored to have with us the prime minister of denmark. , the minister for the united nations climate change conference in copenhagen, her excellency, mayor of the city of copenhagen, and the share of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. distinguished delegates, ladies and gentleman, this climate change conference will be followed closely by people from all over the world.

many have already raised their voices in their host countries platform. to begin, we would like to assure you are short film about this. following that, we will have a selection from the finish girls choir. . -- from the danish girls' choir.

>> emitting carbon the oxide is hitting this generation and the next generation. >> a high number of refugees all over the world.

♪

[scream] >> all countries will be severely hit if we do not act now and. >> who of hundreds of millions of coming refugees. >> i have heard of the forests filled with birds and butterflies, but i wonder if there will be there for my children to see. i am not afraid to tell the

world how i feel. >> please help the world. ♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

[applause] .

>> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, i would now like to invite our distinguished guests and the executive secretary of the united nations climate change secretariat to take their seeds at the podium.

>> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to welcome to the podium his excellency, mr. rasmusen, prime minister of the kingdom of denmark, to address our meeting. you have the floor.

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, excellencies, engaged people of the world, welcome to denmark. welcome to copenhagen, welcome to two weeks where we are to perform what is most difficult in politics, to make difficult but necessary decisions now in order to address mounting problems of the future. global warming knows no borders. it does not discriminate. it affects us all, and we are here today because we are all committed to take action. that is our common point of departure. the magnitude of challenge before us is to translate this political will into a strong

common approach, to forge an agreement that will provide for effective global solutions. climate change is higher on the agenda than ever, and so it should be. the grimm projections from science grow more alarming each day, and already many face the dire consequences of global warming. it is our mission to come to the aid of those who already suffer and to deliver a long-term solution to the mounting problem of global warming. this is our task. this is why we need a strong and ambitious climate change agreement here in copenhagen. the sheer magnitude of our task is matched only by our determination. for more than a year, we have been conductsing intensive

consultation -- conducting intensive consultation in preparation for this conference. in that context i have had the pleasure of engaging with leaders from around the world, your leaders. without exception, they have been supporting an ambitious agreement to halt global warming. i am of course painfully aware that we have different perspectives on the framing and precise content of such an agreement. and i'm sure that no one in this hall underestimates the difficulty we are daysing in finding a common approach in the coming two weeks. but the political resolve to forge a global agreement is manifest, and differences can be overcome if the political will is present, and i believe

it is. as we move ahead over the next days, we will rely critically on you to help to develop an agreement that is most acceptable to all parties and at the same time strong and ambitious, an agreement that is just in principle, an agreement that is effective and operational. to achieve that, we shall need all the technical skills and diplomatic entrepreneurship you command. the world relies on you to successfully conclude the country-driven process that you launched. it relies on us to support you in achieving that success in an exclusive and transparent manner. as i speak to you this morning, 110 heads of state and government have announced that they will be coming to

copenhagen next week. in the conclusion of this conference. their presence reflects an unprecedented mobilization of political determination to combat climate change. it represents a huge opportunity, an opportunity the world cannot afford to miss. your leaders do not come to copenhagen just to talk. they come to act, and they come not to agree to just anything, but to agree to an effective deal based on our fundamental principles, on our common resolve, and on the political, social and economic reality in our countries throughout the world. the agreement world leaders should adopt next friday here in copenhagen must be founded

on the legal principles inscribed in the framework convention, and it must respond to all aspects of the mandates agreed upon in barley two years ago. it must seek to capture progress achieved within the negotiations both under the convention and under the kyoto protocol, providing a powerful response. importantly, it must launch immediate action. the deal that we want leaders to sign off on will be one that affects all aspects of society, just as the climate change does . therefore, the involvement of civil society is of paramount importance. just like negotiators cannot do this alone, nor can

politicians. the ultimate responsibility rests with the citizens of the world, who will ultimately bear the consequences if we fail to act. as decision-makers, it is our obligation to provide the framework for change, and we must unlock the potential for low carbon prosperity. but in order to realize the full potential, our citizens must eventually make it happen. throughout 2009, some of the most important civil society stakeholders have gathered here in copenhagen, at conferences, symptom pose uniforms, round tables -- symptom pose uniforms, and they have voiced their concern and made their

recommendations. scientists have assessed the latest facts, business leaders the opportunities, parliament easterns, and you, the political aspects. and we owe them our gratitude in preparing the ground work and for having contributed to our negotiations. we need to listen to their advice because we are their representatives. the climate agenda has created global communities across all barriers, and we need this global momentum, and we need to build on it. let us not focus on what divides us, but let us keep focused on what brings us together. while you are here in copenhagen in search of new ways to handle climate change, i hope you will also find

inspiration around you. we can change, and we have to change. therefore, we have tried to make a new and a different conference in copenhagen. we have no bottled water. only pure clean drinking water from the tap. two thirds of all food here is organic. we have tried as hard as possible to limit the carbon footprint of the conference. if you have time, ladies and gentlemen, please entertain some inspiration outside the conference center. in copenhagen you will find a large variety of cultural and green tag events. looking in your conference kits , you were perhaps disappointed, or perhaps relieved not to find a figure arena of a mermaid or other

souvenirs. we have decided to cut back on gifts and instead provide financing for scholarships for a two-year program in denmark. [applause] the 11 climate scholars will return to their home countries with knowledge and results that can provide a better future, and so should we. leaders, grassroots and citizens all over the world have sent a strong message of hope for our planet. four million people have spoken their mind on the youtube channel. hope is the starting point of all major efforts. ladies and gentlemen, the world

is depositing hope with you for a short while in the history of minekind. for the next two weeks, copenhagen will be copenhagen. by the end, we must be able to deliver back to the world what was granted to us here today, hope for a better future. i call on all of you to make your contributions, to be constructive, flexible and realistic, to be tough in your efforts to reach agreement and show constraint to other negotiating partners. you must do all this, and still be ambitious, courageous and visionary. a deal is within the reach. to work together, we can accomplish what must be accomplished. so once again, welcome to

copenhagen, and thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, prime minister, rasmussen for your statement. distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is with pleasure that i invite the mayor of the city of copenhagen to address our meeting. madam mayor, you have the floor. [applause] >> prime minister, cleanses, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to copenhagen. i look very much forward to

host you tonight, and especially to show you how the city hall square will turn copenhagen into hopen-hagen in the time to come. many of you traveled far to get here. all of you still have a long journey ahead before we get a good result in copenhagen. citizens all over the world are calling for action. cities all over the world are ready to help you put all our hopes and goals into action. next week, mayors from more than 70 of the biggest and most important cities will come to copenhagen for the climate summit for mayors to stand side by side with you in the fight against climate change. today, cities are responsible for more than 75% of global co2

emissions. we also represent more than 50% of the world's population and some of the world's largest economies. so we may be part of the problem, but we are definitely also part of the solution. and cities are ready to act. together with heads of state, we are ready to assume the mantle of leadership in reaching the same goal, a greener planet. al gore says it clearly in his new book, and i quote. if you want to go first, go alone. if you want to go far, go together. we need to go very far, very fast. end quote. and in copenhagen, we are ready to do so, and mayors from the

world's biggest cities are ready to do so. i do hope you will join us. in copenhagen we have been working hard to prepare for your arrival. you are indeed some of our most important guests this year. as a former commissioner, i negotiated for the e.c. in kyoto. i know what is expected from you. i know you will face days of hard work and nights without sleep. but on the optimistic side, i also know how solutions can be reached at the very last moment. so i am absolutely sure you will do a great job in copenhagen. i also hope you will be able to see some of the work we have been doing in copenhagen. we have been a vision, a goal in fact, to be the first carbon

neutral capital in the world byr in the timeñiñixd 2005-çóçóñi20. but copenhagen is onçóñr its wa. ñkóñr97% of all households in copenhagen have district heating. nearly beekeepers and son of the citizens of copenhagen right there bike every day -- nearly çó50% of the citizens of copenhagen right there bike every day. i also hope you will have an opportunity to hear how

copenhagen will become a city filled with activities to engage the citizens and are many guests. in copenhagen will be transformed into a city of hope . that's why we call it hopen-hagen. every day, hopen-hagen will be filled with experiences and exhibitions. a huge interactive globe will light up the december darkness, reflecting in ever-changing shades and hughes -- houston -- hues, the world's engagement with climate. and hopefully those type of messages will resonate with the

negotiators here. i very much look forward to hosting you tonight at the reception at city hall and on the city hall square. so i bid you a very warm welcome and sincerely hope you will leave our city with a good impression and many good experiences. but most of all, i hope that when you leave this conference hall, you will leave the planet safer and greener for the future. so please help us to turn copenhagen into hopen-hagen. please seal the deal. [applause] >> thank you, mayor, for your warm welcome and for your statement.

distinguished, delegates, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the podium to address our meeting the cheer of the intergovernmental panel on climate challenge. doctor, you have the floor. [applause] >> your excellency, prime minister of denmark, executive u.n. secretary, her excellency mayor of copenhagen, colleagues, members of the media, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. it is a great privilege for me to address this august

gathering at the fwing of a potentially historic meeting which we all hope will lead to action, action which is required urgently on the basis of scientific assessment of climate change, presented in the report of the ar-4. this report was completed a few weeks held before the 14th meeting held in bahli and has had a profound impact ever since. after that, we have had adequate opportunity to further, study and discuss the findings, and determine actions that are required to be taken globally. this conference must, therefore, lead to actions for implementation, and i quote, by all parties taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities, end of quote. woes of the most significant findings was conveyed by two

simple by profound statements. i quote. warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations in global average of air and water temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and ricing global sea level. and the other quotation which i now mention, most of the observed increase in temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in y.s.t. concentrations. in the 20th century, average global it will increased by 0.74 degrees celsius, and sea level rises aamounted to 17 cent meters. with this increase, several small island states and low-lying coastal nations like bangladesh, with land surface

barely a meter or two above sea level would find that every storm represents a serious danger to life and property. the global community thus has a moral and material responsibility to do all it can to limit the growing impacts of climate change on these and other vulnerable societies across the globe. indeed, we need to give practical expression to the provisions of article 2 of the unfcc, which defines the objectives of the convention as the achieve of stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interfeerns with the climate system. on the basis of the ar-4, we know that climate change in the absence of mitigation policies would in all likelihood lead to, one, possibly disappears of

sea ice, two, increase in frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation, three, increase in tropical cyclone intensity. four, decrease in water resources in many semiarid areas such as the mediterranean basin, the western united states, southern africa and north eastern brazil. five, probably elimination of the green land ice sheet and resulting contribution of sea level rise of about seven meters. without met cation, future tense carb -- four to six meters of sea level rice. six, approximately 20% to 30% of speak cease assessed so far being at increased risk of stings, if global warming averages compete 1.5 to 2.5

degrees celsius. climate change is exacted to exacerbate curent stresses on water resources, including urbanization. the resulting flood risk poses challenges to society, physical infrastructure and water quality. it is likely that 20% of the world population, which as a fraction could exceed two billion people live in areas where river flood potential could increase by the 2018. in africa by "20/20," between 75 million and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to water stress due to climate change.

and in some countries on that continent, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. another area facing serious impacts of climate change are the oceans, where the upat the time of carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more as i hadic, with an average ph level increasing. the consequences of that could be serious for all forms of organisms. societies must respond to climate change by adapting to its impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. there are viable options that can be implementing in sectors with low cost and or high benefit-cost ratios. research suggestion that higher benefit-cost ratios can be achieved by implementing some

adaptation measures at an early stage compared to long-lived infrastructure at a later date. based on this reality, this conference must put in place measures for financing adaptation projects in some of the most vulnerable regions in the world. this conference must lead to urgent initiation of large scale actions. this must involve action in the developed countries because the developed country parties must take the lead in combatting climate change and the effects there of. mitt cation of emissions is essential because the ipcc has assessed its cost to be modest. to limit average temperature increase to two degrees to 2.4 degrees celsius, the cost of mitigation by 2030 would not exceed 3% of the global g.d.p.

in other words, the so-called prosperity expected in 2030 would be postponed by just a few months. mitt cation carries many co-benefits such as lower levels of air. >> it is gratifying that the leaders have recognized the significance of lower the average temperature by two degrees celsius. if temperature increase is to be limited to between 2 and 2.4 degrees, global emissions would be limited by 2015. some may question the goal of two degrees celsius as a ceiling because this would lead to sea level rise of 0.4 to 1.4

meters. this increase adding to the effect of melting snow and ice across the globe could submerge several small island states and bangladesh. there is now experience to show there are a wide variety of national policies and instruments available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. there is no better real life laboratory to learn from than our host country denmark. through a series of enlightened policies, denmark has brought about a revolution in wind energy technology. modern detain us win turbines are now able to produce almost 100 times as much electric than the -- left than the turbines manufactured in 1980. it would be correct to assume that a move to renewable sources of energy would cause

employment generation to take place with enhanced economic output. if you look at the example of denmark, sales of wind manufactured energy has grown from 200 megawithout, to 600 megawatts a year. it is economically attractive. denmark as generated jobs and revenues in this sector. the evidence is now overwhelming that the world would benefit greatly from early action, and that would only lead to costs in economic and human terms that would become progressively high. the ipcc has been able to provide substantial evidence that science provides us with the basis for undertaking changes that this conference must urgently initiate. given the wide-ranging nature of change that is likely to be taken in hand, some find it

inconvenient to accept its inevitability. the recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists so that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the ipcc. but it has transparent and objective data stretching over 21 years. i'm proud to inform this conference for the finding of the er-4 are based on measuremented by independent institutions worldwide that institutions worldwide that demonstrate thation on lapped, the internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these e-mail exchanges, many of whom have

dedicated their time and effort to develop these findings in themes of lead authors of assessment reports during the past 21 years. the assessment process is designed to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robust reprocesses, or from other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review. the entire report writing process of the ipcc is subjected to extensive been repeated review by experts as well as governments. there were a total of around 2500 expert reviewers performing this review process. consequently, there is full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of published literature at and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views.

my colleagues and i are conscious of the responsibility we bear and the expectations that we much rick -- that we must deal with in providing fair and objective reproduced assessments of climate change. and debt of gratitude to my predecessors, and the tens of thousands of sign tiffses who have established traditions that establish impeccable consult in the pursuit of our collective goals. in this tribute, i find no basis for any competitions. lastly, i also are express my deep gratitude to this bode for the recentivity and appreciation that they have always displayed in accepting the results of our work. distinguished ladies and gentlemen, we give you our assurance of continuing with unflinching devotion to our duty and upholding the sacred

trust you have bestowed on us. thank you very much. [applause] >> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the podium, the executive secretary of the climate change secretariat to address our meeting. you have the floor. [applause]

>> my mom was holding my younger brother, and my oiler sister was holing my younger sister. the wind and the rain became stronger, and the tide level covered the bank. we dipped our legs in the mud so we wouldn't drift away in the tide. when the water level was up to my dad's chest, we decided to climb trees. suddenly, the tree fell because of the strong winds, and then i was separated from my mom and dad. i clung to a tree trunk and floated along with it. the rain was really heavy, and it was painful when it hit my back. i drifted the whole night, and i was terrified. i couldn't find my mom, my dad and younger sister.

these are the words of a 6-year-old boy speaking after a devastating cyclone. a few weeks later, he was reunited with his sisters and grandmother through save the children's family tracing program. but sadly, there was never any news from his parents or his younger brother. in his words, i miss them, and i always wonder whether they are still alive. excellencies, ministers and ladies and gentlemen, it is repetitions of this that the world is here to prevent. welcome to copenhagen. it is clock has ticked down to zero. after two years of negotiation, the time has come to deliver. at this time of the year, many people are busy crepping their

christmas cakes. to my -- preparing their christmas cakes. to my mind, the ideal christmas cake that needs to come out of copenhagen has three layers. the bottom layers consists of action on mitigation, finance, technology, and capacity building. the second layers consists of ambition on emission reduction commitments and action. it also includes commitments to start up finance on the order of $10 billion per year as well as long-term finance. and the third layer, or the icing on the cake, consists of a shared vision on long-term cooperative action and a long-term goal. and i hope that prime minister rasmussen will light the candles on this cake next friday. over the row sent weeks and

months, i have heard a multitude of statements calling for a successful agreement in copenhagen. and i have heard strong political statements calling for serious emission goals and captures significant technology and financial support to developing country. there is a caribbean saying that goes one, one, dotty build dam. it means build a sturdy wall one brick at a time. solid success also needs to be built brick by brick and from the bottom up. in copenhagen, this needs to be done during the come days. copenhagen will only be successful if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the day this conference ends. in the week ahead, the focus needs to be on crafting solid

and practical proposals that will unleash prompt as on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology red capacity building. developing countries desperately need tangible immediate action on these issues. much of the work that has been accomplished over the past two years can be turned into immediate action. solid action-oriented propose always will give real meaning for the commitment to success in copenhagen that has been building momentum around the globe. such proposals will also provide a strong foundation for further efforts. through the kof, the cmp, the awglp, and others, there are six days to get it done before ministers arrive. ministers will then have two days to take issues forward

before leaders arrive. this means that there are a total of eight days to prepare a workable package that cons sists of both immediate and long-term components which leaders can endorse on december 18. the time for formal statements is over. the time for restating well-known positions is past. the time has come for reach out to each other. i urge you to build on your achievements. take up the work that has already been done and turn it into real action. deliver. reach for success. ensure that millions of children across the world don't suffer the same fate as nele. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, for your statement. distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, this brings us to the end of the welcoming ceremony. please join me in thanking our hosts, the government and the people of the kingdom of denmark, for their hospitality and the special guests for their presence here today. [applause] >> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, you are kindly asked to remain in your seats in order to allow prime minister rasmussen and their guests to take their leave. following which i would like to

invite to the podium his excellency mr. noit, president of the conference of its 14th session to officially open the its 15th session and conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties at its fifth session, and to deliver his statement. thank you.

>> it is my great pleasure to declare open the 15th conference to the united nations framework convention on climate change. [applause] >> distinguished delegates from all over the world, ladies and gentlemen, today we are beginning the historic 15th united nations climate change conference. here in copenhagen, governments from all countries of the world have come together to take a critical step on addressing the greatest risk facing mankind, the risk of global warming.

this was first brought to our attention by scientists. and in response, governments of the world agreed to the united nations framework convention on climate change. it is now the world's most important mechanism for dealing with this issue. we are all well aware that all the nations have exceptional expectations towards this conference. as indicated in the bali action plan and in crop14, this conference in copenhagen should set out the directions for fighting climate changes for several deg aids. countries with substantial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should

make specific commitments to reduce such emissions. developing countries and especially the least developed countries can expect great financial, technical and organizational assistance for aadaptation to climate change, but for quick social and economic development. it is nothing more than simple human solidarity. but the effort of prevention of climate change generates not only cost, they create also a great opportunity for all nations to introduce fundamental changes of their economic systems, with a chance for introduction of modern effective and energy-saving

technologies, and a chance to gradually abandon fossil fuels for production of clean energy from renewable energy sosses. ladies and gentlemen, dear delegates, here in copenhagen, it is an historic moment for our entire planet, and i think that each of us should have the same feeling that we are taking part in a really remarkable meeting. this feeling should awaken the spirit of solidarity and compromise in us. in these historic moments, let us all see above our particular interests, and during negotiations, let us always keep in mind the greater good@@'

>> distinguished delegates, i would like to invite you to turn to subitem 2-a of the provisional agenda for this session. the title of this item is election of the president of the conference at its 15th

session. may i refer you to the following document, cb-2009, slash one, addendum one. you may recall that in accordance with rule 22, paragraph 1 of the draft rules of procedure being applied, the office of president of the conference of the parties is subject to rotation of the five original grooms. we now continue the cycle with the western european group. it gives me great pleasure that the conference elect the minister of the united nations climate change conference in

copenhagen, 2009, who will serve as president of the conference at its 15th session. [applause] >> hearing no objections, it is so decided. [applause] >> may i congratulate him, and i wish you all the best for this very important job at the 15th session of the convention. i now invite her to take her seat on the podium. [applause]

>> thank you very much for the election. i promise you as president i will do my very best to listen to you, the parties, and to ensure transparency. may i also take this opportunity to very warmly

thank minister nowicki for his very strong personal commitment. it has always been a very big pleasure to work with you. thank you so much for all your efforts. [applause] >> for a long time, copenhagen was the name of a distant deadline. next year, next cop, next month. but now, it is now. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the danish capitol. this one has come to c, c for copenhagen, but all c for constructiveness, c for cooperation, and hopefully in the end, c for commitment and

consensus. in short, let's get it done. this is the time to deliver. this is the place to commit. and yes, i know there are still many obstacles, but it is up to us, us in this room now, to try to overcome them. and it is doable. i base my confidence on daily contact with ministers from every group and every continent, and i appreciate very much the trust and overwhelming support ministers and governments have granted to me, so the secretariat and to the chairs. and make no mistake, denmark is committed to maximum progress in the two tracks, the convention track and the kyoto protocol, and to ensure successful and ambitious

outcome. let's get it done. [applause] >> the science has never been clearer. the solutions have never been more bun dant. political will has never been stronger. and let me warn you. political will, will never be stronger. this is our chance. if we miss this one, it could take years before we get a new and better one, if we ever did. actually, the truth is that the copenhagen deadline already works. in recent weeks and months, many developed countries have announced economy-wide emissions reductions. and many developing economies of indicated ambitious national actions as their contributions to the global effort. china, brazil, mexico, south

korea, singapore, indonesia, a few days ago india, and last night, south africa just to mention a few. every positive announcement will improve our chances of staying below the two degrees celsius tarpgt. but as we all know only too well, we are not there yet. and this goes for financing as well. maybe finance is an even bigger challenge. we have seen some positive dynamics in structure and amounts, but in the next two weeks we need to work really hard and find both public and private money. especially, we need money we can count on in the longer term. it is crucial that we ensure a new additional and predictable financial flow for adaptation

and technology in developing countries. dear negotiators, this year you have had weeks of extra negotiating time. since june you have worked with a negotiation text. preparations have been unparalleled. and i take it that your family and friends expect you to be less busy next year than this year. but if so, that means we must get it done now. you're ability to make pro gretzky this first week is a precondition for the success of all of us next week. therefore, compromise, agree. find concrete solutions. use every skill available to pave the way for ministers and leaders for finalize the deal. we conclude cop 15 when our

leaders join us. and leaders have made it very clear they expect to adopt a global agreement 11 days from now. inincludes the results of your work under both the lca and the k.p. that provide the most powerful push and the strongest incentive to conclude your work. finally, to those that may still hold back ambition, fearing their economies will suffer, no, we don't have to choose between economic growth or climate conservation. a global deal will drive job creation. a global deal will drive competitive advantage. a global deal will drive energy security. so ladies and gentlemen, let's get it done. the time has come to set the right course for our world while we still can. the agreement we adopt in

copenhagen must be comprehensive. it must deliver on all major questions across the building blocks. it must launch immediate action, and it must capture all the progress up to now. let us, on december 18th, look each other straight into the eyes and take satisfaction in the fact that we all gave our very best to the defining gathering of a generation. let copenhagen be remembered for the spirit of c, constructionist and cooperation, leading to commitment and consensus. let's mark this meeting in history. let's open the door to the low carbon age. let's get it done, and let it get down now. thank you. [applause] j !2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!1

. . .çóñr

"newsmakers." joining us is stewart baker, who was the assistant homeland security secretary from 2005 until 2009. the information that was put out, what do you think the damage was? guest: this is not very good. the information that was exposed is going to tell people about how tsa runs their operations and the changes they make to security procedures. they will have to change a lot of those. it is very hard to change

everything. that means that this is a road map for terrorists who want to get around the system. callehost: what made this crucil with the sensitivity? guest: this is operational and some of this was very routine. one of them said, this is the wire that we are looking for and these are the kinds of footwear that we will not put through the explosives detector, and this is what we will do when we want to start cutting back on travel with the kinds of emergency steps that they are taking. these are the people we will let through without inspection. those are all things that can help terrorists. host: as far as getting that information back, this is still there on the internet? guest: there are people who think that this is cool to put

that on the internet. host: as far as the explanation of how the internet -- guest: it is very obvious what happened. there was a place for people wanting to make an offer for contracts to show people what the procedures were, in the employees wanted to put these procedures up without the material. they used an electronic blackout, which did not remove the material that was underneath. if you copied everything, and then you took this someplace else, you were given everything that was blacked out. this is an error that many people have made, like the "the new york times" and the justice department. you never make the same mistake

twice. this is a mistake that somebody made at a low level in the department. host: if you want to talk what this incident and airport security, you can call -- the email is cspanwj. napolitano was asked about this. we will paly her r-- play her response. >> the security has never been put at risk, and the document that was posted was out of date. but the posting did not meet the standards of what should be available on the internet, and not available on the internet. we have already initiated

personnel actions against the individuals involved in this. we have instituted the internal review to see what else will need to be done so that this never happens again. and not just the gsa -- tsa, but all of the components. we have one of the largest department to make certain that we are being rigorous, and very disciplined on what is posted. guest: the most important thing that she said there, i thought, was that this was out of date. there have been some changes that have been made. this is in the ordinary course and i believe that there will be more. precisely because this makes it more difficult for people to be able to count on policies in the old manual. obviously, this did not meet the

standards for publication. he did not publish things containing sensitive information. i am confident that there will be a careful training of anyone who is against the material about the problems with the electronic blackout. she is in a difficult spot. nobody can blame her or the management, or the obama nistration, for this mistake. this is the kind of mistake that anybody can make. and so, i have some sympathy for her situation, and she is probably taking about all the action that you can to make certain that this does not happen again. host: if the information is out there, how do you make certain that this is not used for bad purposes? guest: if you have completely

predictable procedures, then the people who want to defeat them can carefully construct their entry onto the airplane to stay within your parameter. remember, they used to allow box cutters on board. the terrorists had box cutters. if you tell people, we will never checked orthopedic shoes then they will put explosives in there. they will have to change their procedures and make this uncertain whether anything that is in the manual can still be counted on by terrorists. and they can do that. this is not the end of the world, but it is very difficult to change everything. host: the first phone call is robert, from dallas, texas. he is a democrat. caller: this is a shelter- skelter operation -- a helter-

skelter operation. we have had this in the system from the very beginning. there is no way to sit back and feel relaxed when we have people sleeping on the job, not showing up or even doing their job. there is something like, that organization from washington that was going to come to help the people during the flood and they did not do anything? we are looking at the government' and the attempts to cast blame has -- we do not even look out. let me ended with this. we say that the home-grown terrorists and the brutality of the armed forces against the

middle east. we are making more enemies than we are supposed to be feeding the world, and be the leader of the world. we are not a leader. guest: i am not certain i can respond to the question about the overseas activities. i do not think that you can be so nice as a government that nobody is angry. but i think that this is unfair to say that tsa is full of people who are sleeping on the job. that is a difficult job. they are in a very bad spot because everything that they do, they do in the full glare of publicity, and anything that happens to the americans is immediately publicized and naturally, there is a lot of resentment, as they get on the airplane and any surprises are

very unwelcome. they have improved dramatically since 9/11. and they continue to do a better and better job of keeping people off who should not be on the airplanes, and trying to move the rest of us through. host: the "the washington post" talks about this, with the federal agency that everybody loves to hate. >> this has replaced the post office. this is delivering a service that we all know that we need, but we all feel as though we should be treated differently because we know that we are not dangerous. and i occasionally write about homeland security issues and the only time i get angry comments is when i defend the tsa.

host: you say that you have seen them improve, but how many airports, is this all the airports and the people involved? guest: this is all the airports and 45,000 employees, which is where they have been. they have been using them more efficiently. the kinds of things that they are doing right now, is if you have gone to the airport, you know that they are now looking at your id and they might use a black light, or a magnifying glass, and that is something that was never done when the airlines were running this. tsa took this over with the existing work force to actually check identification much more carefully than they were being checked before. they have begun looking forces it -- suspicious behavior. we all wonder why they are doing this to babies and old people.

why are they looking for terrorists? they have begun to look for people in line, very carefully, in plain clothes. they observe people look nervous, suspicious, so that they can give them a little bit extra attention. host: you said you were talking about the number of employees, and how they were at this number. do you believe that they should have more of them? guest: they have managed over the years to use the employees that they have more efficiently. i am not suggesting that they need to have more people. it is worth noticing that they have not increased the level even though they have taken on more responsibility. >> what is the level of training will have to go through? guest: depending on the position, some of them do not require a lot of trading, but they're all tested on a regular basis by the people who are

looking for the backs that have to be stopped, because they have dangerous material in them. and so, unlike all of us, there is an actual objective measure and you are tested on a regular basis. host: michael on the republican line. caller: mary christmas and happy new year. in this country, we are so afraid of terrorist that the only thing that goes against this is fearlessness. if anyone out there reads psalms 91, as he will call on me i will deliver him. if we are not afraid of people, and this country that was founded on christian beliefs. we are not afraid of evil. we can overcome them.

>> of course. we absolutely should not be showing fear. there is a difference between showing fear and being dumb about terrorism. we should not make easy, but they will attack us again. we will suffer losses. it is important at that time not to overreact or give them the satisfaction of seeing us respond in a fearful way. host: we are talking with laurie on the independent line. guest: my feeling -- caller: my feeling is this. every time that myself one of my girlfriends, and we are senior citizens. one of us is singled out.

and we are taken to the side, and whenever they will do. that job is a government job. and if i was someone who was screening people, i would choose the most vulnerable, he's the person, to question because i would be afraid that if i question somebody who seemed dangerous, that person just might blow me up. there is something wrong with the picture and i think that those people are wonderful. they are wonderful people but they should be trained. they need to be a little bit more aggressive with people who are actually dangerous. guest: i am sari that you or

your friends are being stopped for the screening. some of that has to be random. you cannot let anyone who is thinking about attacking the airplane believe that he knows exactly what he will have to do to avoid being screened. i really do not think that it is fair to say that these employees will not look for people who are suspicious. that is exactly what we are trying to train them to do. it is true that for a long time, there was a focus on treating everybody the same unless you had a good reason to do this differently. that produces a certain amount of laxity in the system. but no one is checking people who are crossing that barrier because they are afraid that they will blow themselves up,

and injured the employees. this is a government job, but this was not a government job before 9/11, and there were a lot of problems that happened there. one solution that was adopted is saying that this will be a government job, so that the government can pay for the cost of doing the screening. host: as far as the technology, how was this changing? guest: we have magnetometers that are better, and explosives systems that are coming on line. we may be able to eliminate or modify the liquid, because of a specific sophistication of the equipment. there is a dna development that may make it much less likely that you have to go through being packed down. we are deploying systems that

are doing a much more aggressive job of looking at the human body, and are much more likely to find weapons. there is some controversy about that, but i have not been through it. i would much rather use the machine. host: california, we have keith on the democratic line. caller: i have a couple of things to say. i think that the manual procedures that are being posted online is a double-edged sword. this is good because this is like testing software. now that you know what is out there, you know what to do about that. you may be complacent with the existing procedures in the first place. and i want to talk about, you

have intervention with the screening. it does not matter if you are a government employee. you have people with a personal idea of who made seem to be a terrorist or trying to do something. you have to remember that they are just human beings. they may be biased in looking at different individuals that may appear suspicious. thirdly, during some of the tasks for the public, as for what to look out for when getting on the airplane, i have been on an airplane and they have broken off part of my fingernail clipper. you do not put those questions out to the public. that is what you should do. i have not come across as just yet.

guest: in agree with much of what you have said. on the question of the public being involved, that is something that i could not agree more on. at the end of the day, that is the best protection against another 9/11. the past -- the passengers are not simply going to walk to the back of the airplane if there is a hijacking. and we have seen since 9/11, passengers such as with the shoe bomber, he was taken down by many passengers and the flight attendant. they had him covered in tape that they had to cut him out of their win they got him -- they had to cut them out of there when they got him on the ground. if you see something that you are not comfortable with, you have to tell the captain and raise the issue. this is absolutely essential for

securing these rights. the profiling question is what you were getting at. if people are looking for suspicious behavior, will we see them acting in a way that this discriminatory or profiling? that is a problem that frankly, we cannot completely escape. but even if there is no profiling, everybody who has fallen into some minority group, people from the middle east war people who are african- american, there is going to be the inflammation to say -- inclination to say that this is because of my beliefs. i would ask that everyone who is traveling, should give them some slack about this. at the end of the day they will have to choose somebody. maybe this was random.

we cannot be setting the discriminatory concerns on a hair-trigger to really work, or we will end up with a workplace that is afraid to save anybody. how do -- host: how do i know if i am on the no-fly list? guest: there is a program that is worth writing to. what happens in many cases on the no-flight lists, is that the no-fly list is actually very small for people in the united states. a tiny number of americans. but this includes people from outside the united states, and then you take every alias that they have used, and every different spelling of that person's name. and by the time you are finished, there are 1 million

names. much of this is taken away like the birthday. but many airlines never bother to update their software so that they can use this birthday. one thing i used to tell people when i was in government was one way to avoid many of these problems is to fly on southwest. they have a good computer system and they have managed to get down the number of people that they will stop. other airlines may have done this as well. they are taking this over and for the last few years, they have proposed, we should do this, and we will get the birthday and the name, and we will have the airline fix the problem. they will not have to rely on the old computer system. for those of you who think that privacy is not sufficiently protected, i would say that

anybody who has been stopped to was not on the list, but has a name similar to a terrorist, you have been a victim of privacy for several years. during that time, the government has been prepared to take over the list and eliminate all of those problems, and because people in congress or private groups said, you cannot trust the government with sensitive information, they have been insisting on many hurdles for the government before they can start the program. the government is about to start that, and they will bring this in and it may be that this problem will disappear over the next year. this will disappear without any special action. host: we have one more phone call. this is from illinois on the republican line. caller: i would like to ask a

few questions. the first question i have task is, what does this mean when you hear a public official say that they take full responsibility? i never hear about anything that ever happens. the other thing, i will never be on a jet liner that is commercial. i have the right to protect myself. and if somebody had the ability to protect themselves, the terrorism may not have happened. on flight 93, they did not have the ability to have force. when people have the right to protect themselves -- host: thank you very much. full responsibility means that you accept the blame for what happened. this does not mean that he will quit because of the absence.

at some level, i suppose, the management of the department of homeland security is responsible, but there is no one who could identify something that they should have done differently. they want to prevent this from happening at the top level. this is the top level and the leadership department will suffer. i agree with you about not being the sheep. we have to get over that period we are up there on the airplane. i would not say that you should give the passengers weapons. it is now possible for the airline captains to carry weapons. it is dangerous to use the weapon inside a pressurized cabin.

i am not certain i would he is our guest sunday night on

c-span's "q&a". . . a forum on the role of solicitor general with three men who held the job. this discussion was held at the supreme court in washington d.c.

on tuesday. first, justice anthony kennedy. [applause] >> thank you, and good evening. welcome. thank you very much for the work you do, that all of you do for the supreme court historical society. one of the fascinating aspects of a great institution is that you learned over time the place you have in it. it is not apparent to you at the outset. and the historical society is of immense importance, in part because it reminds of the justices of what they must learn in order to understand their role. your work is very, very important. sometimes people ask me, are you nervous before you go on the

bench? the answer is no. sometimes those of you who teach will hear teachers tell students, well, it is just as hard to give the exam as it is to take it. do not believe that. and it is the same way about arguing cases. but my colleague not long ago made the comment that although he agreed with me that we do not feel nervous before go on the bench, we feel that way before we go into conference. we have to present and argued nine cases, and you want to be prepared and do not want to say something incorrect or to be criticized by colleagues by making an error in analysis,

even if they disagree. that is the closest we can get to the feeding of tension and anticipation come and professional concern and professional care that attorneys must feel arguing before this court. not long ago i was in sacramento, calif., my former home. as i was walking up the steps of this court house where i used to try cases, my heart began to beat. it is a great pleasure for us, always, to have a solicitor general of the united states appear before this podium. they know how to help us. they know what is a real question and what is sometimes a question directed more at our

colleagues that at them, and they know and understand that. each of these members of this panel had not only been in the solicitor general's office, but before the court arguing a case is, and i cannot tell you how important it is to have excellent attorneys, and the fact that they have held this office and distinguished themselves has contributed immeasurably to the traditions and excellence of this court. this is my opportunity to thank each of you for the contribution that you have made and continue to make as distinguished members of this court. a distinguished professor at yale has argued 26 cases before

this court and our report -- the chief justice's -- argued before three different chief justices. he is an editor of moore's federal practice. kenneth starr has argued 36 cases before this court and is now a professor of law at pepperdine university. ñrkenneth starr was a member of the judiciary. we lost him when he answered the call to public service to go into the justice department and become solicitor general of the united states, and he was warren burger's law clerk, and has his own book about the court, "first among equals at." -- "first among equals." paul has passed the 50 mark.

he was here when i was a clerk, and is a partner at king and spalding. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great experience because he has been solicitor general of the united states and argued 40 cases before the court. back at the have this experience -- the fact that he

has this experience has contributed to that volume. there are things we should not question. but what those things that is not questioned and accepted as authorial is the book on supreme court practice, and it is immensely helpful. i'm going to turn the proceedings over to our contributors. thank you very much for your contributions to the law, and for being here this evening. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, and good evening. i'm a member of the board of trustees of the supreme court historical society and the chairman of the program committee. that committee oversees

development and execution of the society's many educational outreach efforts. tonight's event is a premier example of the society's worked to expand reach beyond 6000 members. in 1991, the white house historical association, the united states capitol historical society, and the supreme court joined together to develop a national heritage lecture. on a rotating basis, each organization hosts the lecture as a showcase for the work it does. we as a society were fortunate to be the hosts for the very first heritage lectures to 1991, when justice kennedy spoke as part of the packing plant. other lectures held here at the supreme court include the 1995 talk by the right honorable lord wolf on the house of lords and the privy council, the 1998

lecture by the board high chancellor of great britain and on a constitutional changes, the 2002 re-enactment of gibbons, and the 2006 enactment of the treason trial. as you might imagine, it is a high priority to present a significant meaningful program for the heritage lectures. this year, the jackson center in jamestown, new york suggested a program on the office of the solicitor general. of the program committee and society's executive committee agreed that they were an ideal fit. the executive director of the jackson center brought this program to us. i also want to thank our

panelists. our discussion this evening will focus on the work of the solicitor general and away from specific cases, but we do hope that our panelists. the solicitor general, it was not until 1870 that congress authorized the office, saying that there should be an officer learned in what to assist the attorney general in the performance of his duties to be called the solicitor general. since then, the solicitor general has been tasked with conducting all litigation on behalf of the united states supreme court, and supervising the handling of litigation in appellate courts.

four solicitors general have gone on to sit on the supreme court. taft, reid, a jackson, and thurgood marshall. two current justices serve. john roberts and samuel alito. justice marshall said being solicitor general was the best job he ever hadñr, and he had se good jobs. i hope we learn this evening if our panel agrees with justice marshall's statement. let me begin by asking the most recent occupant to briefly explain the job of solicitor general, and if possible, describe what an average day is like in the life of the solicitor general? >> there probably is not an average day, and that is part of

what makes the job so interesting and fascinating. the basic responsibility, in a nutshell, i think, is probably to start with the most public role of the solicitor devereaux, and that is his representation of the united states of america, which most often means the executive branch, but his representation before the supreme court of the united states. and i would think that one way of capturing the job is that the solicitor general in many ways sits at crossroads of the separation of powers, at the court, defending constitutionality of an act of congress or some executive branch policy, and you really see that in the report, because here in the court you have a representative of the executive branch speaking to the embodiment and hierarchy of the

article reports system and representing the views of the united states. the other thing i would say before giving my colleagues a chance to fill in some enormous details is although this public role of representing the united states and the supreme court is the most visible and perhaps most important role of the solicitor general, it is truly just the tip of the iceberg, and there's just an enormous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes to formulate the position the united states will take in the supreme court, to formulate the positions the united states will take in the lower courts and the court of appeals or even in the district court in a particularly important case. as important as our role is, is just the tip of an enormous iceberg.

>> let me add to that. it is really being in the catbird seat with respect to the litigation going on, cases that involve the federal government all over the country. very few lawyers have the ability to look out country and see the movement of 50,000 cases in a lower court move up and point to the supreme court, and it is really the job of solicitor general, in effect, to be -- this is not a fancy term, but a traffic cop, because all of those cases cannot get to the supreme court for resolution, so it falls to the solicitor general to sift through the numerous cases that come up and decide which ones are worthy of being presented to the supreme court, and asked the supreme court to resolve these matters that will have effects that impact the country. >> let me at my word of thanks.

thank you for your hospitality and to the society, your wonderful leadership, i see so many friends here, extremely fine advocates. thank you for that tribute. for the officers of the court, i must also pause and pay tribute to mrs. thurgood marshall. it is wonderful to see you. [applause] i remember being humbled more than once by your lead, iconic husband. he knew how to ask a question, and i struggled to figure a way to answer. it is a great privilege to have you here. i would also add that the statute itself creating the office is pristine in its simplicity, describing a simple role, to assist the attorney general. the attorney-general, who's office was created in 19th 79 --

the office took a long time in -- created in 1879, and it took a long time in gestation. it was through federal law enforcement that it began to exist at all. but i was grateful for the attorney general, which would bring us to the political dimension of the job, politics versus wall -- law. but one of the most intriguing aspects was that occasionally the solicitor general will find themselves the acting attorney general for a particular matter, especially matters of national security, which we should not talk about except to say is one of the most intriguing parts of the job. and i found i was called to do various projects, including working on issues of the justice

system, but it essentially remains the same when it was first passed well over a century ago, and our task is ultimately to assist the attorney general. >> they often occupied the same positions arguing there, but i think in the early 1900's, because of the enormous responsibilities placed on the shoulders of attorneys general, the responsibility for handling cases fell to the solicitor general, and heat, and now she, really occupy that as the principal responsibility. they argued before the court

from time to time, ended lower courts, but that is the exception, not the rule. >> i assume you thought you had a good sense of what the job entailed when the president asked you to become solicitor general. you had worked in the attorney general's office prior to being elected so's the general and you had judged on the d.c. circuit. so what surprised you once you started to exercise it? >> i was down the hall from a very great solicitor general, rex lee, and i know some of the great ones in this room had the privilege of serving him. the conflict resolution, i knew that it was there, but the role of taking various positions and

coming to closureñr, and the conflict resolution, it sounds very much like a judicial role. ñiñrñiçói knew itçóñr existed bt underestimated how much, at least some of my time and energy was dedicated to ironing out a, not in some arbitrary compromise sense, but coming to the view that this in fact should be the position of the united states. >> you have had a lot of exposure. what surprised you? >> i was arguing forñi my positn against the criminal division or some part of the government. butñi what surprised me was the enormous amount of work goingñio

carry out responsibilities. there is the tip of the iceberg, the supreme court. but whenñi i looked at my desk r the first day of real work and salt pile about that high, i said those cannot all be supreme xdñicourt matters. they were recommendations. ç

misguided and they did not apply law properlyñrçó. so it is this syndrome that the solicitor general has to deal ñrñrwith on a daily@@@@@@a)@ @ s general has been called the 10th justice. i suppose the premise is that the solicitor general has as much influence on development what as a justice. when any of you be willing to subscribe to that view or take

issue with it? >> i will say this. the interesting thing versus the solicitor general, because you do care battle lot, and kaplan wrote a book with that as its title, you never hear that phrase coming from any of the nine are real justices. that reinforces that there is a fundamental divide and that, maybe drew said it, that the solicitor general -- the 36 law clerk might be more accurate. and it gets back to what jim said, which is that statutory early, one of the important responsibilities is to assist this attorney general, i think every solicitor general and

lawyer in the office really understands that another important part of our responsibility is to assist the nine or real justices and try and be helpful to them in resolving their cases. and that can take any number of forms. i think in the briefing of cases, i think it is always an aspiration of the office that briefs the case that as it is presenting the case to the court, particularly as it weighs out the facts of the case to like, that it provides the core of the very objective view of what is at stake with the case. that is, i think we feel that we need to present to the court the full picture of the case so that if they pick up the brief, it

was a drought to cope, but now it is a respectable gray. the idea has been that if he picked up the gray brief, you know what the case is about. i think that is a very real way. the other thing i will say is this is also the most obvious manifestation of the way the solicitor general's of west can help the court, a process known in the office but maybe now worlds. that is the cvsg process. it stands for calls for the views of solicitor general, and it happens about two dozen times every term. when the courts have a case that the united states federal government has not previously been involved in, the court will hear the case and get a position, the losing party will

ask the court to take the case and review it on merit as part of the plenary docket, the opposition will involve --- advise justices that they should do no such thing, and they will call for the views of the solicitor general and ask for use on the case. and they are asking for the views on the underlying laws, for the office's view on whether the court should take the case, but also they are at bottom asking what the federal government feels about the importance of the case. generally, these are cases that impact the federal government, but the federal government has not been party, and that is one way in which you do not see this special relationship. they did not call for the views of anyone else. >> i agree.

i thought the justices were asking for the views of the united states, but that is not what it says. it calls for the views of solicitor general. so my personal credibility was on the line responding to the court when those requests were made. the other thing about the idea is that the solicitor general and people on his or her staff are repeat players. if you are a private lawyer with the case before the supreme court, you will argue and you may make missteps, you may push over hard on things that perhaps are not entirely accurate, but it is not likely that you will let the heavens fall on your head the next time you appear, because they're usually will not be a next time. but for the solicitor general and staff, having credibility with the court is critical. it is key to the effectiveness

of the office before the supreme court. ñi>> i was just going to add tht in light of the fact that we're here as colleagues of the ues(ajjp j[i(lc@&c+of the brings toñ2óñi mind the remarke concurringçó in the fabled seize case and in a concurring opinion, he reflected and meditated on the nationñi of the separation of powers system. and i think that is a way to reflect on the relationship, ñiwhich is obviously special ana unique relationship between article two officers and all of those who served under her leadership, and in the article 3 judiciary, but particularly the supreme court of the united states. lñu)r'k about itñiñr is

there is a conversation that is continually under way, and the advantage having a single officer in charge of the executive branch as part of the conversation is that the solicitor general has very elaborate ways to develop over time extraordinarily efficient invitations of people into the conversation. it is not simply that when he served it was just for thurgood marshall, because with all of his when the -- wisdom, was eager to know what different agencies of government fought, and that process of inviting different agencies into the ñiconversation in connection wih a call to the views of the solicitor general or any issue that touches on more than a single department or division. xd>> i think we need to be clear about the fact that it is an

executive-branch officer, and there are occasions -- one would like to hope they did not happen regularly -- where the solicitor general has to stand before the court and challenge things the court has said or done, because they were not write the decided, and they have consequences that through implementation of those decisions, they did not advance the law in the way that the executive branch thinks would be proper. so there is a tension, but i try to keep in mind that there were matters, executive branch matters that i had to forcefully present to the court. i remember one occasion when i was given information that was critical to our maintaining happy relationships with our trading partners. çóñiduringñi oralñi argument, is

asked a question that i knew i could not answer as a memberñiñf the executive branch, because that would have upset the applecartñr with the europeans d so forth. to me, that was painful, and i rice for it.was painful, and i for me, that was an experience that encapsulate it does a dual role in the solicitor general. >> let's explore that. he referred to the fact of the hardest part of the job is deciding what the position of the government should be because of competing interests. the referred to representing clients vigorously in the supreme court, but on one hand

you are a custodian of the credibility of the office, and also a high-ranking political appointee. ultimately to the president. how you reconcile all of those different roles and interests, and in particular, how would you decide to repudiate a decision taken by the prior administration? you have to wait continuity against the perception of the office, against your obligation that you believe to be right? >> it is a very difficult balancing proposition.

on one hand, one thing the justice captures is this idea that there's a special relationship between the court and solicitor general's office, and a sense of independence of the solicitor general's office from the rest of the executive branch. but one of the mystifying things is that if you look at the organizational chart, you would have no idea why there is this culture of independence, because the chart makes things elegantly simple. the solicitor general reports to the attorney-general, reports to the president. as simple as that. in any given case, i do not think one would have to be an accurate -- and here is to the unified executive theory to understand that the president wanted to, and he could direct the solicitor general to take a particular position.

on the other hand, i think that's certainly if the solicitor general found herself or himself being countermanded by the attorney-general or president on a regular basis, that would probably be assigned -- a sign that there would be a time to get a new solicitor general. if you want the context of a particular instance where a prior general has taken the position in the supreme court and there are reasons the new ed construction might take a different position, i did not think i would say absolutely never. i would ever want to take a position that countermanded a prior decision that had been taken by a predecessor. i think the analysis and up being quite similar to what the court itself has to deal with in the areas of decisions of the part slows the general.

it is entitled to great weight, but oftentimes there will be subsequent developments, just as the court will occasionally change course based on subsequent developments. you can have a situation on one level, the united states had taken a different position in the supreme court have a prior point in time. but on the other hand, i have the benefit of all sorts of factors my predecessor did not have come in for the couple of intervening cases i could read -- including a couple of intervening cases, and in those cases, i did change the u.s. position. but i was very careful to be explicit that that was what we were doing and offer a brief explanation why, so it was not simply a matter of changing positions or doing it in a way taken lightly.

>> i had an interview with clinton in the oval office, and i prepared for it, waiting for question after question, kind of like a final examination. but it turned out to be a casual conversation. there came a point in the law when the president looked at me and said, what is the relationship between the president and solicitor general? and i said, mr. president, you are in the constitution. the solicitor general is not. he liked the a lot. [applause] later on, i found myself encountering the problem just post, a position that had been taken by not just one but probably two prior

administrations. the fact that candidate clinton had said when he was campaigning that if elected, he would support x in the case headed to the supreme court. )á@@@@@ ú4@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the thinking was carried by the time i reached my position, i put in the brief exactly the process i follow it rich in the position that it -- that i did.

there was also a point where someone in the white house kept debating with me certain things in the draft i sent over, and finally it must have been midnight, this fellow called and said, well, we do not like footnotes. could you change that. and i said, no. i am comfortable with the position i've taken. and i knew i had succeeded, because the voice on the other side of the line said, but professor -- it had been one of my students. [laughter] and the irony of it all was the court came down with positions on the side that we had urged, based upon a rationale that had been presented by neither of the prior administrations. so it was a hard job to work out, but in the end, the court found its own way.

>> the key is continuity. there is extraordinary continuity in the government, and it is rare. it is a good thing that it happens, that there are changes in position, when thoughtful lawyers, particularly as much as what and bodies policy choices and preferences -- they should advance a different point of view. but it has been said, i think correctly, that good government is good politics, and respecting traditions of independence and with independence, legal judgment brought thoughtfully to bear by process, it is very elaborate, extremely refined, and very impressive, just as a

cog in a very impressive machine. but it is done very rarely, and it accounts for the fact that even with having dramatico they do, the work of the solicitor general largely goes on unchanged, with continuity. i want to tell a brief story of the attorney general going to president reagan and saying our position and our policy position

with respect to the powers of congress as part of reform of bureaucracy and getting control, which the judge devoted a chapter to his wonderful book about, this is non-partisan. we have very thoughtful in dividuals. one measure is a legislative veto. forget by cameras and. they go to the president important -- forget bicameral ism. you go to the president and say that the matter is wrong in terms of constitutional law. it shows the triumph of law

over thoughtful policy. very benign, powerful concerned about getting control of bureaucracy, but that is the wrong way to do it. they had ruled that the legislative veto was unconstitutional, and that proved to be the rule articulated by the supreme court of the united states. >> how do your old rules factor into the decision making process? how much of those to dictate as positions taken on behalf of the united states. the solicitor general once said, i do not answer to the man who appointed me. on the other hand, robert bork, solicitor general in the nixon ford administration, said that he thought virtually every

antitrust case that came to the office, he thought the anti- trust division was taking a division that was not as long, but ridiculous. he dutifully allowed the antitrust division, even though he personally thought they were not just wrong, but ridiculous. so how much did your own view and in to what to present to the supreme court? >> saying ridiculous is hyperbole, certainly. i am not surprised that bob would say that. but i see the role of

solicitor general as a policymaker, not in the sense of government officials, but although we have very fine lawyers and solicitors general tend to have legal background, if we think a position is not likely to be effective, not the best way to present the issue to the court, counterproductive in some sense, i think it is the solicitor general's duty to let that be known, and indeed, in so many cases that have come before the solicitor general for resolution, it is not one entity that is only involved and effective. antitrust is taking a position that will affect the patent and trademark office, or the trade representative, and therefore, we have to look at the solicitor general, at how the position will have an impact on the entire government. one of the issues that came up,

and i think still comes up, has to do with the whole question of respect for agency decision making, how much respect should be given to the courts for the process. arco cases where certain agencies wanted to push very hard in the direction of greater respect from the judiciary, and i thought that are given their position giving the tax -- facts a that they were putting would work to the disadvantage of other agencies, having a negative impact across the government. therefore, in those circumstances, the answer was, no, i will not present deposition, i will not allow that case. but i was head of the civil- rights division, and when matters came from there, i tried not to think of myself as the attorney general for civil rights, because these people were nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate and

they had a right to carry out their policies as they saw fit. >> well, i think that francis was incredibly elegant, giving meeting, engaged in a fantasy, a rather dangerous fantasy about platonic notions of justice determining the position the united states takes. this is very disrespectful to the much more limited and modest role that should be taken, certainly by a single individual. and certainly it is understood even by its office -- author to be hyperbole. been there is a great, strong moral sense to the values of

law, but if you elevate that, it gets to be a bit scary. on the other hand, it surprises me a little doubt judge bork, who if it is a persuasive person, allow positions where it is ridiculous to be advanced. so it is what i think is the most careful, painstaking conversation, making sure that that is what we want to do. that being said, judge bork made it very clear that he gave a great speech to the bar association, saying that if you have antitrust issues, do not knock on my door.

i trust policy. so there is a very good lesson in that. but what is left out of that is that it is a much more collaborative process than either the solicitor general's indicated. >> i think solicitor general biddle came up with this grandiose quotation. there was some irony that he was solicitor general for a very short time. i cannot imagine the attorney general agreed with the solicitor general about his description of the role, but that said, i would echo the point that in understanding different relationships and where the truth lies, between biddle and bork, i think it is important to differentiate

between policy matters and legal matters. i realize it is a continuing, and antitrust cases are a good example of some airlines are fuzzy -- somewhere where lines are fuzzy. but if there is the executive branch, it is not the role of the solicitor general to use his or her monopoly for power over presenting positions to the supreme court to second-guess that policy view. and even then, though, even in that policy area, there is no requirement the solicitor general be a potted plant. and on one or two occasions, i had something where i said it is not my role to second guess this policy judgment reflected in the regulation or the like. but i am a member of this

administration, and i cannot believe that is the position. so let me pick up the phone and call somebody. it is not my job, but they're people who do that, and i can ask it this is really our position. when you are in the more it legal ground, i think the solicitor general is not as grandiose and their role as solicitor general biddle described, but nonetheless, it is not worry take the input given from others and decide whether they are powerful enough to offer the supreme court. and to give you a for instance, during the time i was solicitor general, one issue we confronted across cases was a question of the extent to which we ought to argue that the standard involved in the case was a standard for challenges.

in deciding how the ad ministration will approach that issue across cases and subject matters, it seems like a call for the solicitor general, as opposed to the position of any particular agency who might be involved in a case in any given case. so i think you have to differentiate between the policy issues and legal issues, and i think the role is more robust with a legal issues and less so with respect to the policy issues. >> let me ask you a related question when it came to the filing of briefs. there are many, many important issues that come before the supreme court that do not seem to involve the operations of the federal government at all. for example, the restrictions placed on the availability of abor